Comments by "Hunterchuck" (@Hunterchuck) on "Bhaskar Sunkara: Socialism and Communism | Lex Fridman Podcast #349" video.

  1. 16
  2. 3
  3. 3
  4. 3
  5. 3
  6. 3
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38.  @zunuf  1. The employee did not agree to those wages. If they had the option of actually negotiating, then they would be asking for more. Your statement seems ignorant to how things actually work. Most companies set the wages and since the supply of working bodies needing work is so high, there is no room for negotiation. Otherwise, the company will hire someone else instead. 2. This is yet another ignorant statement. Do you have any idea how much income the store takes in? Your statement would only make sense here if the profit was on razer thin margins. 3. same as #2 4. Now you are getting into socialist territory. In a worker cooperative, the workers have a share of the business and therefore are stakeholders of the business. Their success is tied to the business. 6. "Why shouldn't the employee that sales more burgers get paid more than the one that doesn't?" ---- If you had the ability to understand my question, then you'd know that's exactly what I'm asking. In Capitalism everyone gets paid the same no matter how efficient and productive they are. The profits go straight to the top, which is called exploitation of the working class. Also, you're completely wrong about risk. Workers take on the risk of the horrible decisions their boss makes. They take a huge loss when the business fires them for mistakes the business made. There's been a youtube channel that pointed out situations like that more times than I can count. 7. Because I'm seeing if any Naysayers of the socialist perspective have any good arguments for Capitalism. I'm seeing if I can find an argument that both answers my questions and makes me think. So far I've been disappointed but I still have fun regardless.
    2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2
  51. 2
  52. 2
  53. 2
  54. 2
  55. 2
  56. 2
  57. 2
  58. 2
  59. 2
  60. 2
  61. 2
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88.  @hardikchoudhary1197  Dude, and I'm saying that you don't understand anything about what goes down in Russia. For one, the USSR isn't communism. Secondly, conservatism is going to be different in each nation since conservative thought is mostly about keeping things the same, along with nationalism. This means that conservatives will still be a majority in a nation that once called itself socialist. Thirdly, you keep acting like the election process in Russia is as good as America. There's no corruption? People who talk crap about Putin don't disappear? "If majority of people have voted to keep the USSR and loved to be a Communist country then why majority of them voted against the Communist presidential Candidate that ran in the 1991 election just 6 months later." --- Pay attention to historical happenings man. The referendum was put to the people for a reason because there were a lot of people unhappy with the government and its handling of situations. They voted yes to keeping the USSR but with changes to its operation. Why did Putin win popular vote against a communist party incumbent? Probably for the same reasons why someone like Trump wins over a Democrat incumbent. A recent 2018 poll showed 68% regretting the fall of the Soviet Union. The majority of Russians hate Gorbachev for what he did. The next in line, Boris Yeltsin because Gorbachev immediately retired after dissolving the USSR, made economic promises to fix the economic collapse that Gorbachev brought with the dissolution of the USSR. Now Russian leadership slanders "Communism" and its networks tell people over and over again that they are better off without the USSR. Propaganda effects peoples perspective no matter where. Right now, I'm not entirely certain that the Russian people understand how the Ukraine business is really going with how their government and news tells the narrative. How do you not know any of this? Edit: I also just now stumbled upon a gem of a video for you. Listen to these Russian people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN5BQcRf0s4 They don't feel like there is a difference most of them. Why is that? Because they didn't actually do anything differently to begin with. They did the same thing that humans did for thousands of years, which was overthrow a king to put another on the throne. Real change means doing things completely differently than what was already done.
    1
  89. 1
  90.  @hardikchoudhary1197  I have no idea why you are so obsessed over the last portion of the referendum. My assumption is that it must be an American brain that fancies the words 'rights' and 'freedoms'. You completely ignore the historical context of when and why the referendum was put to vote. You also completely ignore how the voters saw it and why they voted the way they did. Oh and you also ignore what happened as soon as the referendum was voted on. There's a lot of politics involved in the whole process that you didn't even mention (maybe because you don't know) but there is a good video to explain that for you here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrNQeYYvabg So to recap, my first comment pointed out that about 80% of voters voted to keep the USSR, which is true. I also mentioned in my first post that Russia has always been authoritarian. You then take issue with my factual statement and believe that I don't understand it because you chose to hyper focus on the last part as if it was the most relevant part of the referendum. I corrected you and point out that: A) The referendum asks if the people want to maintain the Union but as a renewed federation. B) The statement "as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics" is the trick that fooled people into voting against their best interest. C) I don't even like the USSR, yet you continue to ramble on about how horrible Stalin was and yada yada. I'm done repeating this for you. Why are you so dense? Learn to read too, it's not hard.
    1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142.  @WhiteWolf126  Yeah the discrepancies with your argument are still present but since your not smart ill try to spell it out for you. 1. The example is based on traffic. Your claim that employees are not a factor doesn't reflect reality. You'd need to point to a store that doesn't have workers for that statement to make sense. It doesn't matter how simple you feel the job is. There are lot's of jobs that are actually simple but the workers make a bit better income from. Examples of this are utility jobs like internet service, trash pick-up, construction, etc. The job being simple isn't a factor, it's the profit generated from the work being done. 2. "So the success is determined by other factors and not by simple workers" ----- Again, you need proof that these businesses can remain profitable without people working the jobs. So far, automation hasn't been fully implemented for every job in a McDonald's store. 3. "At McDonald's you could replace anyone at anytime" ----- This is true of any job where the supply of working bodies desperate for a job is high. In certain industries where coders and program development would be needed, there are a lotvof people who have those skills now and so we see companies treating them the same way a McDonald's employee gets treated. Your example here of businesses treating workers a disposable is favorable towards my argument of capitalism being flawed. Thanks. 4. "Are you distributing profits evenly with your workers?" ----- If you had the ability to read and understand my example you wouldn't ask a ridiculous question. My example pertains to people getting paid the same under capitalism. My argument is that people should be paid by the success they bring to the company. Even better is that if it's easy to track the work effectiveness, then the profits an individual brings should mostly go to that individual for doing that work. I work my company by myself. I like to earn my keep so I have zero interest in hiring workers to do work for me so that I can take from their hard work and get free money. That's the easy way but not how I do things. If I were to hire someone then I'd pay them accordingly to each job they do and not take from their labor like a thief, like most businesses do.
    1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151.  @inebriatedgamer5058  Well if you're talking about economic freedom then the socialist proposition is the most free you can get. Right now with how things are currently done, you don't keep what you earn. To give you some perspective i'll use an example: Let's say that each pool is being charged $40 for each weekly service. at the end of the month that is $160 for each pool and the standard weekly pool cleaning schedule that companies like to hire workers for is a 50 pool schedule. That's $8,000 a month for 50 pools. The worker gets paid hourly for $11/hr and it can take anywhere from 15 minutes to 1 hour to clean a pool. The fact that some pools can take only 15-30 minutes to clean is the main reason why the hourly rate is undercutting the worker for potential profits that they are missing out on and the business is taking for themselves. $11/hr for a 40 hour work week is $1,760/month $8,000 - $1,760 = $6,240 State sales tax depends on state, we can say that it's 6.25% and the monthly cost of running a pool company comes down to chemical and equipment cost which can vary from $1,000-$2,000 Winter time it's definitely less than $1,000 $6,240 - 6.25% (Sales tax) = $5,850~ $5,850 - $2,000 (Business expenses) = $3,850/month Payroll tax of 6.36% is shared between employer and employee and comes out of each paycheck the employee earns. However, we can clearly see here that the business owner just made $3,850 not doing any of the work compared to the worker who did and made only $1,760. It’s fine for a business owner to take a piece of the profits made for providing the work but to the extent of a 60-40, 70-30 or an even more disgusting 80-20 is why people have become unmotivated and burnt out by the current working environment. If workers are getting paid the same whether they work hard or not then obviously people will become inclined to work less and not bother pursuing positions that require more responsibilities. There is hardly any incentive to do so and there is good reason that a big part of that is the static wage of hourly or salary work. On top of that the working class gets taxed at a higher rate in proportion to the cost of living than the wealthy business owners/shareholders that take a chunk of the workers paycheck. At the end of everything people are left with only crumbs.
    1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156.  @anomaly_echelon7994  There are a lot of discrepancies with your narrative. 1. "Everyone works for a business that pays them for their work, and it's not about working the hardest in capitalism, it's about being effective." ---- if being "effective" means productive, that's been the socialist point these past 180 years. Karl Marx for example talked about the surplus value of a persons labor going straight to the business owner who owns their labor. To translate this for a kid like you to understand i'll use a simple example. There are two stores of a business and one store gets more traffic than another, which means that the workers in the busier store is being more productive and generating the business greater profit. Why then in capitalism, do workers in both stores get paid the exact same as if they are doing the same exact workload? Shouldn't the workers be fairly compensated for the profits they generate from their productivity? Why does that profit only go straight to the top? 2. Innovation cannot thrive in capitalism. It's a simple google search away for you to figure out how many people tried to innovate and the company took that innovation and didn't compensate the person who had that idea. The idea gets stolen and the business owner takes the credit for it and makes the profit form it. This is why stories of "I had an idea of how to do things better but i decided not to bring it up." are so commonplace in a capitalist economy. There's also a thing called patents that literally prevents people from creating anything if it's similar to what the patent details copyright. I will never understand why people like you always use innovation as an argument when you people are the least innovative people i've ever met.
    1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165.  @namenloss730  My guy..... Why are you trying so hard to resist this stuff? It's not hard to understand. I really hope that after i respond to your points, it actually clicks for you. "How are co-ops harder?" --- The same way a direct democracy is harder. People have more responsibility and involvement. When you join a worker cooperative, you are buying into it and investing your own money in it as if it's your own business because you will also be an owner of that business. You will be more involved with what is going on in the business and make decisions along with your fellow business owners. Not every co-op is structured the same because everyone likes to streamline these processes differently but that's the gist of why it's more difficult. Being an owner of a business means you bear responsibilities of what you own. "You do realize that "capitalism" hasn't been around much longer than 180 years either right?" ----- Capitalism has been around for thousands of years. Capitalism is literally private ownership. It must be very mysterious for you why the transition from the feudalistic era to the now republic era was so smooth economically. It's not like ownership of property changes just because people did away with the monarchy. To make this crystal clear for you and i hope to god your brain is capable of understanding this simple example. With capitalism, you have two stores that belong to the same business. One store will clearly get more traffic than another but workers in both stores will always remain with the same pay. Workers in one store work harder, producing more but where is that surplus value going? Socialists say that is wrong and has been the main conversations for these past 180 years.
    1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184.  @555salt  1. "value is subjective and determined by a humans goals and how something relates to those goals. " --- Very good. 2. "different factors such as difficulty to produce, and goals of the consumer will move the current price around. prices are never steady and require movement in response to these factors." ---- Yes and No. No because the producers that set the prices are not concerned with consumer goals. For example, there are plenty of companies now that have been taking advantage of using excuses to raise prices to ridiculous levels and therefore have made record profits. The raising of prices is against consumer goals but if the consumer has no choice and needs the goods/services then they will have no choice to pay whatever the provider decides to charge them. 3. "Socialists run on the assumption that value = prices = labor and that prices are somehow able to be objectively set by a central body completely ignoring the fact that prices currently work as an extremely efficient and democratic rationing method." ---- Confusing statement. Still don't understand what is being said but based on what i think i understand, that's a hard NO. Socialist say that when the business generates profit (surplus value) or in other words what the business makes more in money than what is expected, then the workers should see that surplus value reflected in their paychecks doing the surplus workload to achieve that. For example, in capitalism right now there are two McDonald's stores and one gets more traffic than another. One store is clearly doing more work because they are getting more traffic and therefore are producing more than the other. Why then, are employees of both stores getting paid the exact same as if they are doing the same exact workload?
    1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202.  @bloviatingbeluga8553  1. Learn how to read. I didn't at all say that one of the stores are unprofitable. This is a narrative you are making up in your head so that you have a strawman to attack. 2. Your narrative of competing doesn't even make sense anyways ( "The point is to either take a spot away from competition, or to advertise, or plenty of other reasons." ) This narrative only works if someone is super wealthy. By your own logic, it is impossible to compete unless you are so rich that you can afford to plop down a store in an area just to advertise and see if you can pull customers away from other businesses. This doesn't even work in reality and you would know that if you even dared attempt it. To put it plainly for you, try starting a burger shop right now while all of the best spots have been taken by other multi-billion dollar businesses. I've seen a couple of burger shops in my location close within the first year due to that fact alone. You cannot compete in a market that is over saturated with already successful businesses that have already taken the spots where traffic can easily see and access the business. 3. "This said nothing at all other than "Well they agreed to a set wage lol" --- Why I said this should be easy as hell to understand. You understand how supply and demand works? When supply is high, the ones who buy have the advantage. When demand is high, the ones who set the price have the advantage. Demand for work is high and supply for working bodies is high. If you try to get hired at McDonnald's and ask for $20/hour because you looked into the profit and loss statement of the store and know that they can easily pay you that much due to the traffic the store gets, they will turn you away because there are plenty of other more desperate people who will agree to as little as the business wants to pay. This is also why companies have always taken their factories to other low income countries so they can exploit the fact that there are desperate people who are willing to work in sweat shop conditions. 4. "In all of the capitalist west you are free to leave any job at any time for any reason." ---- Now we go back to the same boring dialogue tree with you now where I bring up an analogy that makes you feel uncomfortable and write it off. I already went over that in an earlier post..... 5. Answer now, how to you fix a dictatorship that is authoritarian. Quit avoiding after claiming you wanted a serious discussion. We apparently need to hold your hand and REAAALLLY baby you through this.
    1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206.  @LevisH21  I'll tell you what. Take a look at history and you can find thousands of battles and even a few full blown revolutions because of how bad capitalism has been. You think the Russians did the soviet revolution for fun and giggles? Even here in America did you not hear the many battles like the Battle of Blair Mountain? You are an absolute clown if you think capitalism started with a 40 hour work week, weekends, a decent paycheck (depending on what is "decent" compared to the cost of living), sick day, vacation etc. These had to be fought for and people died to achieve it. Karl Marx wrote "workers of the world, unite! You only have your chains to lose!" in the communist manifesto for a reason. Albert Einstein also wrote an article "Why Socialism?" explaining that the real purpose of socialism is to advance beyond the predatory phase of human development. If you want to defend capitalism so badly, then you have a lot to answer for and a socialist is going to grill you real good. Let's use an example of the socialist perspective and see how you answer: There are two stores of a business and one gets more traffic then another due to its location being in an extremely high traffic area. This means that the workers in one of the stores are being more productive and through their increased productivity, they are generating the business greater profits. So why then in capitalism do the employees of both stores get paid the exact same as if they are doing the same exact workload? Why do the profits go straight to the top? Shouldn't the workers who are being more productive see the success they are bringing to the business reflected in their paycheck?
    1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1